Big Zoom: Nikon Coolpix P900 real-world samples

Nikon's Coolpix P900 offers a 16MP sensor and a mind-blowing F2.8-6.5 24-2000mm equivalent zoom. It features built-in Wi-Fi with NFC, 7 fps burst shooting, built-in EVF and a fully articulated 3" 921k-dot LCD. The P900 is capable of 1080/60p video recording and uses a new Dual Detect optical image stabilization system, claiming up to 5 stops of shake compensation. We've been shooting with it for a few days - click through to view our gallery of sample images

I don't get the point of this camera really. It's supposed to be aimed at those who travel yet with that reach you can shoot the Eiffel tower from New York and still fill the frame. No need to get on a plane so no need for this camera. /s

Unless one travels on a scheduled tour or a cruise, or to see the Statue of Liberty or the Eiffel Tower, a GPS tag is invaluable a few months or years later, when memory fades. Heck, sometimes I don't even know the precise locations I've been and taken a shot at.

I know the manufacturers try to shave every penny they can, but it kind of defeats the purpose for many who travel.

Nikon's "built-in" GPS is a joke! I bought a D5300 for the built-in GPS three months before taking a cruise from SF to Australia, with several port of call in Polynesia and Micronesia. At the open top deck of the cruise ship, the built-in GPS took more than 5 minutes to lock on to the satellite signal and when it does, failed to lock-on. In the entire 30 day trip, the built-in GPS was practically useless.

Luckily, I have "ECO Pro-F GPS” a third party GPS from Dawn Technology fitted to my D800. The drain of the battery of this GPS is more than tolerable. Eco Pro GPS locks-on to the satellite signal within 10 seconds and keep lock. If the signal is lost for whatever reason, the last position is stored in memory until a new position is obtain from the satellite. Heavy cloud did not affect the Eco-Pro GPS

Your picture results are a bit worrisome in being consistently soft. They are a good cautionary gallery.

I try to keep my Canon SX50's ISO below 400, and I never use digital zoom. I use spot metering and a few other minor tweaks.

I'm hoping to buy a P900 (or else a P910, when it appears), and I have gone so far as to already have batteries and a wall charger. But now I'm hoping to see a few razor-sharp SOOCs to convince me to buy the camera.

I noticed the photos of the buildings in the distance are a bit soft but I think it is mostly lack of contrast. My Nikon D600 is no better than that with those types of photos. Until I lower the blacks level and up the contrast in Lightroom.

If you're looking for a do-it-all travel camera with a big zoom, look no further than the Panasonic FZ1000. Since it's no longer new, you can easily find it for only $150 more than this Nikon. Totally worth the extra money. Night and day.I bought it as a B cam for 4K tests and I was surprised by its very high IQ.

@Papi, these are very different cameras, for different purposes. Here people are considering the Nikon largely for its reach. If I add my own Canon SX50 into the comparison, we have three cameras that all can take wide-angle 24-or-25mm shots, but with the Canon having a max optical tele equiv of 1200mm (÷50=X24 power); the Nikon, 2000 (X40 power); and your Panasonic, just 400 (X8 power).

You could crop your photos on a computer and simulate more reach that way, but your X8 is just too weak to compare with X24 or X40. (All these figures are binocular-power equivalents; not zoom marketing.) So the question is whether the required small sensors can actually deliver sharp detail, now or in the future. So far, they are doing extremely well but images still fall toward being too soft. ISO has to be kept low.

But not long ago, the hard drive you are using in your computer was an "impossibility" too. Physics makes the rules, but it doesn't rule out technological imagination.

The sensor in the FZ1000 is 4 times the size of the Nikon's. Look at a few of the recent reviews of the FZ1000 on youtube, plus Panasonics excellent series of short youtube videos showing some of the excellent features of the FZ1000, including iZoom, which crops the sensor, giving great 800mm focal length. Then add digital zoom to it, and you will have similar quality at super zoom length. You mentioned sharpness; they're not there yet with this camera, you can only get half decent images with low ISO because of the sensor. Another bit of info re the FZ1000 Is the ability to get high quality stills from 4K video, done in-camera without having to download those huge files. In this case the focal length equivalent is 37mm-592mm at an aspect ration of 16:9. You can also select a Photo Video mode in 4K which allows you to choose the other aspect ratios with a slight change in focal length, which is a cropped sensor. 4K video is a series of 8mp images done at 30 fps.

Having had Panasonic-Lumix 12X zoom pocket camera and having tried a Nikon pocket camera with (I think 26X) my vote goes to Panasonic. I have been using Nikon SLR since the early 1960 and had own Nikon DSLR D90, D600, and currently D800, D5100, and D5300, hence, I am not attempting to bash Nikon. I just call it as I see it.

I have friend's as students and I make them shoot RAW. haha.The DR in RAW to get maximum detail while keeping hand holdable shutter/motion freezing speeds are invaluable.Makes plenty of sense for a 2000mm lens!

Price is relative. For a pns bridge this is a really good price. Even an entry level ip6 is more expensive. lol.

2000mm? Come on! It's like the uninformed buying those teleconverters and then complaining because the image quality is terrible when they use them on their $200 70-300mm lenses. This is way over the top, useless. I had the Olympus Stylus 1 last winter, and sold it because the 300mm f2.8 lens needs excellent skills, which I don't have, and excellent conditions, to get crisp, sharp images, and Nikon are pushing this camera? Even their Nikon 1 bodies with the 70-300mm $1000 lens giving a bit less than 900mm is not sharp. There's only one way to get high quality, long focal length images, and that's with thousands of dollars worth of kit. This camera shouldn't be selling for any more than half the suggested retail. People buy those 3 times teleconverters on ebay, they're crap, even on a $10,000 lens. Buy a $200 camera with a 30 times zoom, and use the digital zoom to get further, and you have as good as this. I'm disappointed in Nikon.

The comments are so predictably tedious. Every superzoom announcement and photo set offers posters here the opportunity to see their ignorant snobbery in print. I guess this is the cheapest thrill imaginable, but so tiresome.

Nice pics. Good job DPR. IQ looks better than I might have feared. The only problem I have with this camera is that it is too big.

I've got a pretty open mind and am not too much of a camera snob, but look at the wide angle shots without even zooming in. The trees are a solid block of green smeared together. It's just not a good sensor.

Because considering how big these two companies are in camera manufacturing, you'd honestly think by now they could have made a decent bridge camera! Their philosophy is old school when regarding this segment of market, they think superzoomist/bridge camera aficionados are content with crappy out-dated little sensors and slow lenses, resulting in poor IQ.... Unlike Sony or Panasonic, who both have made a bridge camera (FZ1000, RX10) that competes with entry level dslr, in functionality and IQ.

I agree. It's not a case of being a snob, it's a case of having companies like Nikon have more respect for the intelligence of their customers. Unsuspecting people will pay this outrageous price for this camera, expecting far more than they'll get. Nikon put out some excellent compact cameras in the early days of digital, which produced some excellent quality images, but this is just a scam. If you get this camera, better get a very good tripod, and do a bit of serious research on long lens technique.

No RAW? This is a camera for beginners, not for serious photographers. (If it was a camera with features that a pro or serious amateur would use, I'd definitely consider a camera like this for my big trips, as my backup camera to my DSLR)

The bar has been set (albeit a low bar). I have no doubt that Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc will soon come out with non-sucky versions within the next year or two.

Just awful smearing of detail, even at base ISO. It really shows in the foliage - take a look at image #22. It looks like a painting.

That's at 24mm, but it doesn't seem to improve much as you start to zoom - take a look at image #11 at 125mm.

A slow, overly ambitious lens + small sensor = terrible IQ. No surprises there. But many people just view images on-screen, so I guess the sort of people who would buy a camera like this might be happy with it.

A lot of these all in ones have severe in camera processing regarding noise reduction. For the sharpest shots noise reduction needs to bet set to the lowest setting and the aperature controlled to lessen diffraction. And of course the lowest iso is also ideal. Look for shots where the user has specified the in camera process settings. I have yet to test one of these all in ones myself so I am not sure about other factors at the 200-250mm and above or without a tripod. Again diffraction is also a real concern especially when the aperture is not specified.I recall reading that this review site is forced to capture pics at the default in camera settings.

Oddly, that was what got me interested in the camera! I read the original DP review a while back and while I was of course impressed by the reach I thought it would be too much of a gimmick....until one shot of a house at 2000mm that had the contrast flattened and wobbly distortions from the interaction of the IS with the wind etc., that looked very like an oil painting.

Since then every time I look at a test shot or video I'm quite conscious of this smeared, flattened quality...but there's something analog/optical about it which I find strangely compelling. Head says no, no, no about virtually every technical factor - no raw, shutter speed limitations, IQ - but heart says yes because of that odd dream-like quality.

I think a lot of people will buy this camera, enjoy it and get photos they would not have gotten otherwise. Before long, there will be a photo book by someone who used this camera exclusively, and this will lead to more people buying the camera.

Is it for DPR readers? No. But some pros will take it as a challenge to get the best from the camera. If I was in a war zone, or North Korea, that 2000mm might just do the trick. Then, there's photo safaris for those who don't want to lug a D800, private investigators, National Enquirer, the NSA, the list goes on.

I think these samples do not represent best of what the camera is capable of or intended for. Having a 2000mm lens does not mean that you can take a clear photo of something a mile away. But the same 2000mm is ideal for wild life photography. Many DPR members already have the camera and are getting amazing shots of birds. See this flickr gallery of a DPR member myssvictoria to get a feeling of what the camera and lens is really capable of:https://www.flickr.com/photos/myssvictoria/sets/72157651158420940//

For the sharpest shots noise reduction needs to bet set to the lowest setting and the aperature controlled to lessen diffraction. And of course the lowest iso is also ideal. Look for shots where the user has specified the in camera process settings. I have yet to test one of these all in ones myself so I am not sure about other factors at the 200-250mm and above or without a tripod. Again diffraction is also a real concern especially when the aperture is not specified. This review site is forced to use default in camera settings .

Sorry, but none of these is close to acceptable to my eye. I understand the compromises involved in the tradeoff between weight, expense, convenience and IQ, but if you're halfway serious about bird photography, this is not your tool.

My point was that the Flickr gallery is much better than the DPR samples. Of course a supper zoom cannot compete with DSLR and long fast lens (at least 5 times the weight and cost) for ultimate quality. I never said that. And what is "half serious about bird pictures" anyway? For a serious hobbyist bird watcher documenting outings a supper zoom is more than capable of producing great images. For commercial work the big DSLR rig is mandatory of course. No argument there.

Bird watchers and bird photographers are as similar as sports fans and referees - different interests and different tools applied to the same subject matter. I agree that a bird watcher could make good use of the P900, but not a half serious photographer.

I bought the P900 for its reach. I have been shooting hand-held. It is quirky though. With a dslr, you can instantly zoom and focus for quick captures. The Coolpix is power zoom and power focus. Then there is the finding of the subject when the camera is zoomed out. These are work around issues, but if you are coming from a dslr, be warned that you will have to have some patience, and you are going to miss some shots. I have a sharp meadowlark, and I shot the moon the other night. Swimming waterfowl have been good subjects as well. It has the reach. It doesn't cost thousands either. I am satisfied with the image quality. Blur is operator error. Enjoy.

I predict he'll have a deal for a new show sponsored by Mutual of Omaha very soon.

P.S. Could you please test out how well these photos print. I can see a nature lover like me making biggish prints with this camera to hang on my walls as reminders of favorite trips. It might also be a great camera to take pix of kids sports and print out to send to grandparents (who love to fill their walls and every available horizontal surface with framed pictures of their grandchildren.)

I suspect the default noise reduction settings are severe. If you look around you can find pics by people who turn this to the lowest setting and shoot only at iso 100. I found the quality was much sharper. Although I am not sure how sharp at zoom above 200-250mm since alot of the online pics are downsized. I need to test one for myself.

The reason is the atmospheric haze and time of day the pics were taken. For the landscape and mountain images, closer to magic hour would have been better. The glacier shots are over exposed - easily corrected with the exposure compensation feature.

Lynx photo shows the strength of long focal length, so P900 isn't another boring 24-800 superzoom or so. It's damn sharp for casual printing. I would use that specially for wildlife.The only real meh here is RAW absence.

How much resolution does this lens actually have at f6.5? Anybody who says 16mp I think is crazy. I estimate around 7mp of resolution possible at that aperture from a 1/2.33" sensor.

Assuming the same physical aperture diameter, every step shorter and wider (smaller fstop and zoom range in proportion) would NOT reduce the 2000mm resolution until passing ~960mm or so. In other words this lens is >2x longer than it has any business in being for a maximum physical aperture of 2000/(5.64*6.5) = 55mm.

1/2.33" 16mp sensor demands an f3.1 lens to stay out of diffraction. A 24-960 equiv f3.1 constant lens should offer the exact same resolution at 2000mm with a crop or digital zoom that this weirdness does however at every smaller distance it'd be far better. All from the same physical dimension.

It's not like these companies can't do the math on that either. People wanting 2000mm framing and offering a generous 16mp sensor to work with don't NEED this kind of length. It adds nothing. Why do we put up with 2000mm f6.5 being though of as superior to 960mm f3.1?

Mosc, though your argument is valid, a person who pays under $600 for this cam, won't care. They only want to get the shot, and if its in focus, even if its lacking a bit of resolution, (which pixel peepers and pros are more concerned about) - they will still be happy. Just read some of the comments below of some who already own it.

It's 7mp assuming perfect glass and sensor, you are correct. I'm sure this glass has lots of software distortion correction which further limits things. Even arguing the 2000mm shots from this camera contain 7mp worth of information is far fetched as you say let alone 16mp. All the more reason that extreme telephoto from a 1/2.3" sensor is better accomplished by cropping a far FAR shorter lens that is brighter.

For the reasons you stated, 960eq f3.1 >> 2000eq f6.5 even assuming all you care about is detail from a 2000mm frame. 2.5 mp of resolution could be grabbed from this sensor from the center/ideal 15% of a 312mm equiv f3.1 lens. As you state, the actual resolution for a focal plane 2000mm away from the P900 is competitive with a cropped shot from a mediocre f2.8 300mm lens covering the same 16mp 1/2.33" sensor!

Not only can you compete with the P900's 2000mm reach on a 300mm f2.8 lens, it'd be a much smaller lens that would fit in a smaller package.

"How much resolution does this lens actually have at f6.5? Anybody who says 16mp I think is crazy. I estimate around 7mp of resolution possible at that aperture from a 1/2.33" sensor."

I would not expect more than 1. Airy disk diameter is about 10 micrometers, given that the sensor is 6x4.5mm, it gives about 600x450 completely independent unblurred pixels, or at 1200x900 you get double the frequency and no more improvement by Nyquist-Shannon.

Downsampling to 1mp 1/2.3" f6.5 would mean virtually zero diffraction interference from one resultant pixel to another at any visible frequency. Diffraction would be completely removed at that level. Some slight diffraction does not destroy resolution, you're being a little harsh.

No interaction will be at 0.25Mpix. At anything more than 1 Mpix, there are overlapping Airy disks from point light sources which should fall on pixels above, below, left and right of the current one.Imagine you photograph an LCD screen, with all pixels white and one black. If you frame only 600x450 pixels on that screen, you will clearly see at least one black pixel in your 16 Mpix (or whatever) B&W picture. Now shoot at 1200x900, you will not see any of the shot pictures black, it would look the same as if a group of 9 screen pixels was very slightly darker than the rest (with the center pixel even darker yet, but still might grey). And that situation would be indistinguishable from the actual white and light grey situation shot without diffraction. Shoot a checkerboard pattern on the screen with more than 1200x900 pixels, and you will not be able to tell which pixels on the screen are black and which are white, it will be all grey.

Part 2: One thing photographers have to remember, is that our eyes are great cameras! Our eyes have a dynamic range (from black to white) of about 25 stops. The best cams on the market have half that at about 12 stops, 14 stops with tweaking in LR.

Looking at the three glacier images Dan-08, Dan-20 and Dan 13, shot at 24mm, 200mm and 400mm consecutively, one can see all three need exposure comp to get the bright clipped areas correct, easily accomplished by a photographer who learns how to use this feature. I think dpReview is showing what happens in full auto mode without any intervention by the shooter.

As to the post that said a smart phone can take a better photo, well the latest models on the market cost more than this cam, and certainly don't have its zoom range!

I suspect for most buyers of the new Nikon P900, and the features it packs... it will be good enough!

Part 1: For its features, zoom range and price category of under $600, I think this is a great camera! Does it have the sharpness of a Nikon D800 with a 500mm f/4 Nikkor lens? Of course not! The latter system, which I own, is a $10,000 investment. It's the old adage of you get what you pay for!

But let's look at the gallery images more critically and thoughtfully. I found the owl closeup pretty decent, considering it was taken in the shade in low light conditions. Yes, you don't have great feather detail, but the DOF is very shallow. Looking at the racoon image under direct sunlight, you see much better sharpness and detail.

The glacier closeup at 2,000mm (Dan_06) suffers from over-exposure, easily corrected with the +2 to -2EV exposure compensation. The data provided does not show what time the photo was taken, but there appears to be a lot of mid-afternoon atmospheric haze. Shooting from a long distance, just makes it worse. Certainly not under magic hour!

I have the FZ1000. One of my main reasons for purchasing it was its ability to fast-focus and get the shot. I am curious about how quick the P900 is to focus, particularly at the long end of the zoom. I've used the SX50, and it seems to hunt a lot at the long end.

This camera was not made/designed for pixel-peepers. It was not designed for high-quality prints. It was designed to simply "get the shot" where othe cameras would not suffice. Once people comprehend that, there should be a lot less whining....

I'm definitely impressed with the composition, subjects and overall presentation of the samples - great job DPreview! IQ is exactly what I expected from a mega-zoom camera. I've used Sony's high zooms for several years and IQ is similar for this type tool, which is completely acceptable given cost. Without the long zoom, many of these shots would be impossible to get. The only disappointment I've heard of so far is an occasional operational freeze-up, which battery removal/replacement fixes.Overall, Nikon has set the zoom bar high with this one. Way to go Nikon!

Am I going mad? All the comments here are really positive, but to my eyes, this looks dreadful. In most of the wide shots, this _camera_ has worse IQ than my _smartphone_ in broad daylight. Even £50 Fujis can do better than that. And the noise... Where on Earth did they find that sensor? 2004?!

Some images at the long end of the zoom (like the Eagle) show really poor contrast, too... It was pretty obvious ISO 1600 would look like a watercolour, so I'll discount the mess that is that Snowy Owl pic.

I'm sure I'm going to get called a pixel peeper, but I was judging based on the largest gallery view, which is smaller than a lot of prints I'd like to make?

On the other hand, the first Lynx shot is quite nice. What's going on?! I think the combination of very clumsy noise reduction with rather a lot of oversharpening isn't doing it any favours. Are there controls for this on the camera? I see it doesn't have RAW, which is disappointing, it might have been possible to fix the output...

A lot of what you're looking at is diffraction. 1/2.33" 16mp f6.5 is well into diffraction and that's as wide open as you can get through most of the zoom range. It's soft because the aperture isn't big enough to give 16mp worth of information.

There's no advantage here of 16mp f6.5 2000mm vs say 16mp f2.8 500mm cropped to 4mp for the same visible area. Zero. Talking about this lens as a 2000mm lens is false advertising. At least with the 500mm f2.8 you could change the position of your crop some when you want a 2000mm frame.

Well I would agree and disagree with that, I think you are right about the diffraction ( it's >f32 in FF equivalent ,FF sensor 30 times more area)

But cropping 500mm to 2000 equivalent would leave you with 1/16th the pixels, so 1megapixel of the 16 left.((2000/500)^2)

Take for example a d800 with 500mm F4 if you crop to the same FL (2000mm), you would be left with 36/(4*4)=2.25 MP , or around 1 perceptual megapixel (Because DXO rates it as 16 perceptual megapixels).

So unless the p900 has under 1 perceptual megapixel at it's longest focal length (which i don't think it has, pure guessing/estimation i think it's between 2 and 3.5), it can out resolve a d800 with 500mm

Pat Cullinan Jr, the question isn't if it can handle that, the question is if the lens were better but shorter since the sensor is far exceeding the lens if you couldn't just crop to accomplish the same result.

I found the pics better than I had expected when I read about the camera on photographylife.com, and I think the same again. I find them perfectly acceptable, considering the kind of camera that came from. But how about reviewing this camera at the beach? It's almost summertime so I think it would be interesting to see some beach shots.

Just for testing, compare it to a 24mp APS DSLR with a 300mm lens. Uprez the DSLR image to match the Coolpix at 2000mm. See what it compares like. If you can see more detail with the Coolpix, then it has a place.

Big big zoom bridge cameras are quite a tool, no matter the comments of pixel peepers.These guys would never tell the difference of an image of a celebrity in the beach or sport scene printed in their favorite tabloid or sports mag.It's sure that those cams images would never make it to National Geographic pages, but they can capture an image of importance at the glance whereas the pro monsters systems would need an eternity to do it.Some of those cams offer very good IQ comparable to monsters in some cases.The P900 seems to offer a decent quality comparing to the results of previous implementations of a couple years old from other manufacturers. Definitely not a top in IQ, but the +30x zoom factor has its cost.

To avoid the " smeared" look (as in these zoom shots) with these sensor lens combos one must only capture at ISO 100 and turn noise reduction to the lowest setting. Am I wrong? I have seen sharper 200mm images coming from these all in ones before but have never owned one.

The FZ1000 can go up to 1600mm using its digital zoom. I wonder if the image quality would be comparable to the P900 at 2000mm. Take into account that the the FZ1000 sensor is roughly four times the size of the P900.

You do get more megapixels from the p900, but i doubt youre getting 16mp worth of resolution at 2000mm

You never get 16MP of resolution. The whole point is that you get more detail of an area or object than a lens of a shorter focal length.1MP of detail at 2000 would be considered very good for a distance shot. With all the atmospheric disturbance. Even my P&S at 750mm have little detail in distant shots. But shooting at full zoom at closer objects can give good results.

ludvik123, you are right. The atmospheric disturbance is the biggest problem with these super-superzooms. Close objects could be clean, but far objects outside are valueless in images. Canon SX50 HS is 24-1200mm eqv., and I think that's the maximum in practice. And RAW ! Cameras without RAW output are from the past.

I have a couple of small semsor superzooms. Longest is only 750mm, not 2000mm! Over long distances the atmospheric disturbances are awful but over shorter distances it is useful in photographing animal life. I have shot squirrels with individual hairs well defined.The useful resulution is not close to 16Mp, more like 2mp At best At the tele end. And 10Mp at the wide end.

"By forpetessake (4 hours ago)Please refrain from the silly f2.8 is f2.8 comments. It's good to know the subject before commenting and embarrassing onesel"perhaps you don't know the difference between physical f2.8, and the quantity of light the sensor gets per area unit or in totality ?Sorry 2.8 is 2.8. Then you can speak of equivalent for focal, DOF or overall quantity of light the sensor gets.

Since if you are talking about equivalence the ratio of the lens focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil changes ...., You cannot say it's 2000mm f6.5 35mm equivalent, it's either 385 6.5 or 2000 (>f32 , apparently 33.8) equivalent.

150 f2.8 on micro four thirds, you get the iso values of 2.8, but it's equivalent to 300 5.6 , not 2.8, and those 2 stops happen to be the FF noise advantage (give or take) , coincidence? not really .

Now one could argue that ISO is actually quite outdated, but it's still how things are measured, I shoot m4/3 now , but I do not live in the illusion that my iso 200 would be anywhere near that of FF, in fact FF at iso 800 is to be expected to give similar noise.

It may be a matter of perspective, but the problem ALL the companies are misleading customers,i.e when they are depicting a sony rx10 next to a 70-200 FF 2.8 lens, and advertise , 24-200 2.8 equivalent,

> f2.8 is still f2.8 as regards to light gathering, no matter > the sensor size. The 'equivalent' f-stops you quote are > only related to depth of field. This is a common confusion > in the photo community.

This is the correct physics. Why don't DPR lay the question before experts in DxO or Fujifilm, etc., and get it from the horse's mouth?

With some of the logic presented here,I should argue that if I had a d800 and cropped to dx equivalent with a 200 2.8 lens, that it would be like having a 300 2.8 FF equivalent lens hihi, see how I just magically did that!?:P(My brain still tells me that i should put here that it's 300 f4.2 equiv.) /sorry for some sarcasm

because a FF 200mm f2.8 lens has an aperature of 71mm and putting it in front of an APS-C sensor doesn't magically make the aperture bigger. The equivalent focal distance of 300mm comes from saying you're cropping away 57% of the lens. That means you're not using a lens with a 71mm aperture anymore since most of that aperture shines on useless area around your smaller sensor. The 43% of the aperture you're actually using is only 48mm across. In terms of low light performance, diffraction, depth of field, everything that actually matters besides referencing some "standard" ISO exposure nonsense, the lens is now a 300mm focal equivalent with a 48mm usable aperture. And that, by math, is a f4.2 equivalent.

Think of it this way. Take a 200mm f2.8 FF lens and put it in front of a FF and an APS-C sensor. Now on the APS-C, capture what you can (57% of the image is gone) and on the FF camera, stop it down to f4.2 (57% of the light is gone). Both capture the same number of photons.

@mosc, not totally exact:Use a FF200mm f2.8 on FF or APSC, full open you always use the 71mm aperture, and it's what give the light on the sensor or film by area unit, so You can use the same result of an external lightmeter to setup both cameras.But as you say, the APSC sensor is 43¨of the FF sensor, so the total of light light/area*area is 43% less. That's why you for a similar picture, you have around 1stop more noise. Then for DOF, with the same physical aperture, as the angle of view is shorter, you have to go back 1.5x the distance to get the same shot, and so the DOF is 1.5x the one of a FF body, because you don't shoot the same picture at the same distance. If uou shoot at the same disatnce, you have exactly the same DOF if you shootyour 200mm at 2.8, but you have not the same picture.

Another Foolpix product!Thats why I commend Sony and Panasonic for changing the norm when it comes to bridge cameras, they realised sacrificing the tele end enabled them to produce a product with a larger sensor that was capable of delivering good to reasonable image quality throughout its focal length, because its pointless having a massive zoom range if you're unable to get usuable images at its longest end

More about gear in this article

Nikon has released firmware updates for a pair of its Coolpix compact cameras. Firmware v1.2 for the Coolpix P900 superzoom resolves issues that can occur when using a wireless remote, while the v1.1 update for the S6700 fixes a rare problem where the camera locks up when powered on. Read more

With a 2000mm equivalent zoom range, the Nikon Coolpix P900 leads the current ultrazoom class in terms of reach. While there's no question that the camera has an impressive zoom range, a nature photographer based in Germany has made it ever-so-obvious just how powerful this little ultrazoom is. His YouTube video of the moon shows that at 83x optical zoom the magnification is so powerful, the rotation of the Earth is easily seen as the subject drifts through the frame. Read more

The Nikon Coolpix P900 has the longest zoom of any camera by a large margin. Whether you're a nature photographer or just spying on your neighbors (not that we'd recommend that), the camera's 24-2000mm should cover any situation. We got our hands on this monster zoom and will run through its most notable features right here.

Nikon has extended its superzoom range to include the Coolpix P900, offering a 16MP sensor and world's longest zoom lens, which is equivalent to a mind-boggling 24-2000mm. It features built-in Wi-Fi with NFC, 7 fps burst shooting, built-in EVF and a fully articulated 3" 921k-dot LCD. The P900 uses a new Dual Detect optical image stabilization system, claiming up to 5 stops of shake compensation. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

The Edelkrone DollyONE is an app-controlled, motorized flat surface camera dolly. The FlexTILT Head 2 is a lightweight head that extends, tilts and pans. They aren't cheap, but when combined these two products provide easy camera mounting, re-positioning and movement either for video work or time lapse photography.

Are you searching for the best image quality in the smallest package? Well, the GR III has a modern 24MP APS-C sensor paired with an incredibly sharp lens and fits into a shirt pocket. But it's not without its caveats, so read our full review to get the low-down on Ricoh's powerful new compact.

The Olympus OM-D E-M1X is the ultimate sports, action and wildlife camera for professional Micro Four Thirds users. However, it can't quite match the level of AF reliability offered by its full frame competitors.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

We've updated our waterproof camera buying guide with the latest round of rugged compacts, and we've crowned a new winner as the best pick in the category: the Olympus TG-6. That is, unless you happen to find a good deal on the TG-5.

Researchers with the Samsung AI Center in Moscow and the Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology have created a system that transforms still images into talking portraits with as little as a single image.

K&R Photographics, a camera store in Crescent Springs, Kentucky, was robbed by armed men, who not only took thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, but also injured the 70-year-old co-owner of the store.

The new Fujifilm GFX 100 boasts some impressive specifications, including 100MP, in-body stabilization and 4K video. But what's it like to shoot with? Senior Editor Barnaby Britton found out on a recent trip to Florence, Italy.

It's here! The long-awaited next-generation Fujifilm GFX has been officially launched. Click through to learn more about the camera that Fujifilm is hoping will shake up the pro photography market - the GFX100.

We've known about the Fujifilm GFX 100 since last fall, but now it's official: this 102MP medium-format monster will be available at the end of June for $10,000. In addition to its incredible resolution, the camera also has in-body IS, a hybrid AF system, 4K video and a removable EVF.

According to DJI, any drone model weighing over 250 grams will have AirSense Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) receivers installed to help drone operators know when planes and helicopters are nearby.

Chris and Jordan are kicking off a new segment in which they make feature suggestions to manufacturers for the benefit of all photographer-kind. To start things off, they take a look at the humble USB-C port and everything it could be doing for us.

The Olympus TG-5 is one of our favorite waterproof cameras, and the company today introduced the TG-6, a relatively low-key update. New features include the addition of an anti-reflective coating on the sensor, a higher-res LCD, and more underwater and macro modes.

The Leica Q2 is an impressively capable fixed-lens, full-frame camera with a 47MP sensor and a sharp, stabilized 28mm F1.7 Summilux lens. It's styled like a traditional Leica M rangefinder and brings a host of updates to the hugely popular original Leica Q (Typ 116) that was launched in 2015.

We've been playing around with a prototype of the new Peak Design Travel Tripod and are impressed so far: it's incredibly compact, fast to deploy and stable enough for the heaviest bodies. However, the price may turn some away.